1. Welcome to DNTrade. If you want to find out about the latest domain name industry news or talk, share, learn, buy, sell, trade or develop domain names - then you've come to the right place. It's a diverse and active community, with domain investors, web developers and online marketers - and it's free! Click here to join now.
    Dismiss Notice

Have the rules changed?

Discussion in 'Netfleet.com.au' started by neddy, Aug 11, 2013.

  1. neddy

    neddy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    Yesterday I noticed that there was a winning bid of $1750 on melbournevirtualoffice.com.au.

    But what was strange was that there was only one bidder - and the bid was made with 12 seconds to go.

    http://www.netfleet.com.au/auction-history/?sid=1041810

    Questions:

    1. Surely under the rules, the buyer should have got the domain for $10 plus fees?

    2. Am I correct in saying that there is no current ability to place online fixed bids on Netfleet?

    3. How did this transaction happen then? (One can only presume by telephone).

    4. So from various perspectives, particularly given that you haven't notified your client base of the potential to do this sort of thing, is this fair and reasonable?

    By the way, I don't have a problem with fixed bids - provided everyone knows that they can do them - and it is able to be done in a transparent manner.

    Here are the existing rules:

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  2. neddy

    neddy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    Sorry, the bid was on Friday, not yesterday.
     
  3. Bacon Farmer

    Bacon Farmer Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    608
    There are at least two things wrong with this situation.

    1. Netfleet have changed their rules again without telling us.
    2. Netfleet appear to be acting on behalf of some buyers whilst having inside knowledge of other peoples proxy bids.

    The first is contemptuous and the second potentially grounds for legal action.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. geodomains

    geodomains Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    841
    Likes Received:
    101
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    Yeah a bit strange for NF to be doing this. Why do this without letting everyone know?:confused:

    Don
     
  5. FirstPageResults

    FirstPageResults Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    106
    auDA Member:
    Yes
  6. neddy

    neddy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    Totally contrary to their terms and conditions as per the screen shot I did earlier. Fixed bids online are not possible any longer - that's a very old blog post.

    I wondered if this was the case before I posted; so to make sure of my facts, I went to the individual page of a domain on auction today, and made a fixed bid of $33. It registered as $10.

    If you don't believe me, try it now on any domain you may want to bid on tomorrow.

    And I also happen to know for a fact that the buyer of the example domain contacted Netfleet directly to make the bid.

    So my point remains - I don't object to fixed bids, but it has to be a level playing field in every regard.
     
  7. neddy

    neddy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    And to prove my point, I have just gone to the individual page for kindlebooks.com.au and tried to make a fixed bid of $139.

    As you can see from the attached screenshot, my bid is registered as $139; but the current bid is registered as $10.

    As it should be under the current terms and conditions of the proxy bid system.

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    1 person likes this.
  8. Ashman

    Ashman Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    76
    That does prove a point Neddy, nice work.
     
  9. johno69

    johno69 Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    423
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    This.

     
  10. m8e

    m8e Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    14
    REALLY? AGAIN?

    Slippery as eels (.com.au)

    Insider trading is the trading with access to non-public information.

    Insider trading (based on inside information) is illegal because it is grossly unfair to other investors who don't have access to the information.

    Netfleet, do you realise if you piss off enough of us domainers (your primary client) then it only takes 2 or 3 of us to band together and fund a competing service.

    I have the technical chops to pull it off, just currently not the need or motivation.

    You are creating the need and motivation for creation of another better drop catching service.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Ashman

    Ashman Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    76
    I think this should be an important and immediate issue for auDA and here is why:

    "auDA has authorised Ziphosting, MD Webhosting, NetRegistry, Planet Domain, TPP Domains and TPP Wholesale to share registry connections for the purpose of operating the Netfleet domain catching service".

    The duty of regulation lies with auDA not with Netfleet or her group of companies.

    Since auDA authorise those companies to sell domain licences not otherwise available to the general community, surely then those companies have a duty of care to act in the best interests of the community and not for the special interests of their private clients.

    The self-regulation Netfleet seems to enjoy is not only anti-competitive but it has effectively created a monopoly in the marketplace.
     
    2 people like this.
  12. DnEbook

    DnEbook Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    839
    The lack of reply seems to say a lot
     
  13. AnthonyP

    AnthonyP Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    56
    Firstly sorry for the slow response.

    The fixed bidding option on the single domain view page in the past did cause a bit of confusion amongst clients more used to the proxy bidding format so we switched the default bidding format back to proxy bidding on the single domain view.

    The old code was still there but it was disabled and you needed to add &fixedbid=true to the URL in order to place a fixed bid.

    I have brought this old software back to life by adding an optional fixed bid box to the single domain view so that everyone has the option to choose one or even both options.

    I am sorry for causing any confusion by having this feature only available if someone asked for the URL.
     
  14. johno69

    johno69 Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    423
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    Why would anyone even remotely sane go out of their way to request the URL to fixed bid, then go ahead and place a fixed bid on a domain that was $1750 above the next bid?

    Why would they not just place a proxy for that same amount?

    I may just be too stupid to see the logic..
     
  15. AnthonyP

    AnthonyP Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    56
    It is definitely my preference that everyone places their own bids on the system.

    Unfortunately the client was away from their computer and asked me to place a fixed bid for a fixed amount. Considering that there was no existing bids on the domain name, and the amount was fixed I did not feel it was a conflict of interest at the time.
     
  16. AnthonyP

    AnthonyP Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    56
    Just to clarify the bid was placed on an auction lot with no other participants.

    Competition is good in all industries, all the major registrars are now offering backorder services and drop is still operating with a 43% success rate over the last 7 days. There are lots of options available for clients already and if you offer an even better service I am sure you will get lots of business.
     
  17. AnthonyP

    AnthonyP Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    56
    Just to clarify auDA does not authorise us to sell domain licenses which are not otherwise available to any other registrars. Any registrar can (and some do) participate in the drop market. auDA is only authorising Netfleet to share registry connections nothing more than that.

    The general community is also able to apply to become a registrar and to have the same level of access as us to the registry.
     
  18. neddy

    neddy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    Anthony, these are the facts as I see them - please correct me if I am wrong on any:


    1. Your posts today confirmed that everyone was operating under the proxy bid system. In fact, as at a couple of days ago, they were your published protocols.

    2. Therefore, when the buyer of MelbourneVirtualOffice.com.au contacted you by phone to make a bid of $1750 (because he was away from the computer),
      why did you not place this as a proxy bid as per your published protocols?

    3. Given that was their maximum bid, if they were outbid, it wouldn't have mattered. If they weren't outbid, then they would have bought it for $10 or $1 above the next highest bid.

    As I said originally, I don't have a problem with Netfleet offering fixed bids. But please tell us first that this is available for all.

    Be very proud of what you have achieved ( and continue to achieve) with Netfleet. But as you promised previously, please forewarn us of any changes. Surely that's not too much to ask?

    All I want (and I know others feel this way too), is a level playing field where we all compete under the same rules; and are not subject to any backroom deals being done privately; or the potential of anyone using insider information to either make us pay more for domains - or lose them altogether.

    I have made my point - and I will add no further comments. I'm not running away - I want to get on with domaining. People can make up their own minds.
     
  19. AnthonyP

    AnthonyP Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    56
    I am sorry again for missing the boat on forewarning. I find it pretty hard to forewarn you of everything we try to pilot.

    I did attempt to meet you (and other dntraders) as part of our recent trip to Brisbane to get more of an idea of your business and your requirements and the invitation is still open to chat if you are down in Sydney any time in the future.

    In fact I'd like to meet up and chat with more dntraders if possible. If anyone is keen to catch up for a coffee I am more than happy to learn more about your businesses and what does and does not work well for you.
     
  20. Ashman

    Ashman Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    76
    You can spin it anyway you like Anthony, since that is your job right. How would the ACCC spin it?